Trending Now
  • High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 
Commercial Special Features

The Secret to Success with Trade Secrets – 5 Factors That Litigation Funders Should Consider When Evaluating Trade Secrets Cases

February 14, 2023

The Secret to Success with Trade Secrets – 5 Factors That Litigation Funders Should Consider When Evaluating Trade Secrets Cases

The following article is a contribution from Ben Quarmby and Jonathan E. Barbee, Partner and Counsel at MoloLamken LLP, respectively.  Litigation funders have trade secrets on their minds.  Since the introduction of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in 2016, trade secrets litigation has been on the rise.  Over a thousand trade secrets cases were filed in federal court in both 2021 and 2022.  By all accounts, that trend is set to continue.  Big verdicts have followed, with some trade secrets verdicts now rivaling the biggest patent verdicts.  In the information age, a company’s most valuable intellectual property may not be its patents after all, but the wealth of non-patented, proprietary information surrounding its ideas—its trade secrets. Trade secrets cases can be more attractive to litigation funders than patent cases.  The funding of patent deals is regularly scuttled by patent expirations, validity concerns (especially Section 101 patent eligibility concerns), the threat of inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the perceived focus of the Federal Circuit on reversing the largest patent verdicts that come before it.  Trade secrets side-step many of these issues.  They do not expire.  They are less likely to be sunk by an obscure prior art reference.  They are not subject to IPR proceedings.  And they are generally not subject to scrutiny by the Federal Circuit.  They also offer many of the same benefits to plaintiffs as patent cases: they too can be rooted in invention stories that will resonate with juries and lead to exemplary damages. They offer their own challenges, of course.  Unlike patent cases, there is no “innocent” misappropriation with trade secrets.  A defendant must often come into contact with the plaintiff’s trade secrets for a claim to arise.  Successful trade secret claims usually require a chain of events that put the trade secrets in the hands of the defendant.  Patent plaintiffs do not face those hurdles. Finding promising trade secrets cases requires identifying the types of companies that will regularly find themselves in situations that lead to trade secret misappropriation: joint ventures, startups seeking investment by larger industry players, acquisition targets, and companies operating in industries with high employee turnover and mobility.  And once those cases are found, performing due diligence on them requires a very specific type of focus. The following steps are critical:
  • Identify the Trade Secrets. Ensure at the outset that there are clean, concrete, and well-defined trade secrets to assert.  In some jurisdictions, plaintiffs must identify their trade secrets before proceeding with discovery—failure to do so with sufficient precision can stop the litigation dead in its tracks.  If plaintiffs can clearly identify the form of the trade secrets (e.g., scientific data, customer lists, product recipes, hard copy documents, etc.), the chain of custody for those trade secrets, and any changes made to the trade secrets over time, their case is far more likely to withstand the test of litigation.
  • Verify the Plaintiff’s Protective Measures. Defendants will generally argue that a plaintiff has not taken adequate steps to protect its trade secrets.  You need a clean and clear story to tell about the steps a plaintiff has taken to protect its intellectual property.  Tangible evidence of such steps—company policies, firewalls, passwords—is invaluable.  And there should be a narrow or controlled universe of third parties—if any—with whom the information has been shared.  Each additional third party with access to the information can increase the uncertainty surrounding the trade secrets and affect the value of the case.
  • Estimate the Value of Trade Secrets. Calculating damages in trade secrets cases can be trickier than in patent cases.  It is harder to find comparable licenses or valuations for similar types of trade secrets since trade secrets are just that—secret.  There are also fewer established damages methodologies in trade secrets cases.  While this allows for more flexibility and creativity in crafting a damages theory, it can also make trade secret damages susceptible to challenges.  The Georgia-Pacific factors used so often in patent cases can help determine reasonable royalty rates in trade secrets cases, but courts have yet to adopt those factors as the definitive standard for trade secrets.  In conducting due diligence, hire a damages expert to estimate the value of trade secrets before filing a case.
  • Assess the Value of Injunctive Relief. Trade secrets cases are often better candidates for injunctive relief than patent cases.  Determine the strength of a case’s injunctive relief prospects early on.  The likelihood of injunctive relief has to be factored into the economic value of a trade secrets case, since it will directly impact the likelihood of early settlement.
  • Determine the Narrative. Storytelling matters in every IP case.  But it perhaps matters in trade secrets cases even more so.  It is imperative to have reliable witnesses who can illustrate the plaintiff’s narrative in a compelling and clean way.  Test the potential witnesses before considering funding.  Let them tell their story—and challenge that story—under conditions that will most closely approximate those at trial.  Attractive cases should tell a persuasive story about how the trade secrets reflect plaintiffs’ know-how, experience, and competitive edge, and also expose the motives for defendants to steal those trade secrets.
These considerations are a starting point.  Due diligence should be tailored to the particular facts and nuances of each potential trade secrets case.  Careful consideration of these factors will help ensure that funders make the wisest investments, while avoiding common pitfalls in trade secrets litigation.

Commercial

View All
Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.

Case Developments Commercial

UK Court Approves Final Settlements in Car Delivery Charges Class Action

By John Freund |

Final settlements have been approved in a long running UK class action concerning allegedly excessive car delivery charges, bringing closure to a case that has been closely watched by the group litigation and litigation funding communities. The approval marks the end of proceedings brought on behalf of thousands of motorists who claimed they were overcharged by car manufacturers and dealers for vehicle delivery fees.

An article in Fleet News reports that the High Court has signed off on settlements resolving claims that delivery charges applied to new vehicles were inflated and not reflective of actual costs. The litigation alleged that consumers were systematically overcharged, with delivery fees presented as fixed and unavoidable despite wide variation in underlying logistics expenses. The case was pursued as a collective action, reflecting the growing use of group litigation structures in the UK consumer space.

The approved settlements provide compensation to eligible claimants and formally conclude a dispute that has been progressing for several years. While specific financial terms were not positioned as headline figures, the outcome underscores the practical realities of resolving complex, high volume consumer claims through negotiated settlements rather than trial. The court’s approval confirms that the agreements were considered fair and reasonable for class members, a key requirement in representative and opt out style actions.

The case also highlights the important role litigation funding continues to play in enabling large scale consumer claims to proceed. Claims involving relatively modest individual losses often depend on third party capital to cover legal costs, expert evidence, and administrative infrastructure. Without funding, such cases would typically be economically unviable despite their collective significance.